Search

This study presents a hybrid (Bayesian-frequentist) approach to sample size re-estimation (SSRE) for cluster randomised trials with continuous outcome data, allowing for uncertainty in the intra-cluster correlation (ICC). In the hybrid framework, pre-trial knowledge about the ICC is captured by placing a Truncated Normal prior on it, which is then updated at an interim analysis using the study data, and used in expected power control. On average, both the hybrid and frequentist approaches mitigate against the implications of misspecifying the ICC at the trial's design stage. In addition, both frameworks lead to SSRE designs with approximate control of the type I error-rate at the desired level. It is clearly demonstrated how the hybrid approach is able to reduce the high variability in the re-estimated sample size observed within the frequentist framework, based on the informativeness of the prior. However, misspecification of a highly informative prior can cause significant power loss. In conclusion, a hybrid approach could offer advantages to cluster randomised trials using SSRE. Specifically, when there is available data or expert opinion to help guide the choice of prior for the ICC, the hybrid approach can reduce the variance of the re-estimated required sample size compared to a frequentist approach. As SSRE is unlikely to be employed when there is substantial amounts of such data available (ie, when a constructed prior is highly informative), the greatest utility of a hybrid approach to SSRE likely lies when there is low-quality evidence available to guide the choice of prior., (© 2024 The Author(s). Statistics in Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: To demonstrate bioequivalence between two drug formulations, a pilot trial is often conducted prior to a pivotal trial to assess feasibility and gain preliminary information about the treatment effect. Due to the limited sample size, it is not recommended to perform significance tests at the conventional 5% level using pilot data to determine if a pivotal trial should take place. Whilst some authors suggest to relax the significance level, a Bayesian framework provides an alternative for informing the decision-making. Moreover, a Bayesian approach also readily permits possible incorporation of pilot data in priors for the parameters that underpin the pivotal trial., Methods: We consider two-sequence, two-period crossover designs that compare test (T) and reference (R) treatments. We propose a robust Bayesian hierarchical model, embedded with a scaling factor, to elicit a Go/No-Go decision using predictive probabilities. Following a Go decision, the final analysis to formally establish bioequivalence can leverage both the pilot and pivotal trial data jointly. A simulation study is performed to evaluate trial operating characteristics., Results: Compared with conventional procedures, our proposed method improves the decision-making to correctly allocate a Go decision in scenarios of bioequivalence. By choosing an appropriate threshold, the probability of correctly (incorrectly) making a No-Go (Go) decision can be ensured at a desired target level. Using both pilot and pivotal trial data in the final analysis can result in a higher chance of declaring bioequivalence. The false positive rate can be maintained in situations when T and R are not bioequivalent., Conclusions: The proposed methodology is novel and effective in different stages of bioequivalence assessment. It can greatly enhance the decision-making process in bioequivalence trials, particularly in situations with a small sample size., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Basket trials are increasingly used for the simultaneous evaluation of a new treatment in various patient subgroups under one overarching protocol. We propose a Bayesian approach to sample size determination in basket trials that permit borrowing of information between commensurate subsets. Specifically, we consider a randomized basket trial design where patients are randomly assigned to the new treatment or control within each trial subset ("subtrial" for short). Closed-form sample size formulae are derived to ensure that each subtrial has a specified chance of correctly deciding whether the new treatment is superior to or not better than the control by some clinically relevant difference. Given prespecified levels of pairwise (in)commensurability, the subtrial sample sizes are solved simultaneously. The proposed Bayesian approach resembles the frequentist formulation of the problem in yielding comparable sample sizes for circumstances of no borrowing. When borrowing is enabled between commensurate subtrials, a considerably smaller trial sample size is required compared to the widely implemented approach of no borrowing. We illustrate the use of our sample size formulae with two examples based on real basket trials. A comprehensive simulation study further shows that the proposed methodology can maintain the true positive and false positive rates at desired levels., (© The Author 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background/aims: To evaluate how uncertainty in the intra-cluster correlation impacts whether a parallel-group or stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial design is more efficient in terms of the required sample size, in the case of cross-sectional stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trials and continuous outcome data., Methods: We motivate our work by reviewing how the intra-cluster correlation and standard deviation were justified in 54 health technology assessment reports on cluster-randomized trials. To enable uncertainty at the design stage to be incorporated into the design specification, we then describe how sample size calculation can be performed for cluster- randomized trials in the 'hybrid' framework, which places priors on design parameters and controls the expected power in place of the conventional frequentist power. Comparison of the parallel-group and stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial designs is conducted by placing Beta and truncated Normal priors on the intra-cluster correlation, and a Gamma prior on the standard deviation., Results: Many Health Technology Assessment reports did not adhere to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guideline of indicating the uncertainty around the assumed intra-cluster correlation, while others did not justify the assumed intra-cluster correlation or standard deviation. Even for a prior intra-cluster correlation distribution with a small mode, moderate prior densities on high intra-cluster correlation values can lead to a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial being more efficient because of the degree to which a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial is more efficient for high intra-cluster correlations. With careful specification of the priors, the designs in the hybrid framework can become more robust to, for example, an unexpectedly large value of the outcome variance., Conclusion: When there is difficulty obtaining a reliable value for the intra-cluster correlation to assume at the design stage, the proposed methodology offers an appealing approach to sample size calculation. Often, uncertainty in the intra-cluster correlation will mean a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial is more efficient than a parallel-group cluster-randomized trial design.

Repeated testing in a group sequential trial can result in bias in the maximum likelihood estimate of the unknown parameter of interest. Many authors have therefore proposed adjusted point estimation procedures, which attempt to reduce such bias. Here, we describe nine possible point estimators within a common general framework for a two-stage group sequential trial. We then contrast their performance in five example trial settings, examining their conditional and marginal biases and residual mean square error. By focusing on the case of a trial with a single interim analysis, additional new results aiding the determination of the estimators are given. Our findings demonstrate that the uniform minimum variance unbiased estimator, whilst being marginally unbiased, often has large conditional bias and residual mean square error. If one is concerned solely about inference on progression to the second trial stage, the conditional uniform minimum variance unbiased estimator may be preferred. Two estimators, termed mean adjusted estimators, which attempt to reduce the marginal bias, arguably perform best in terms of the marginal residual mean square error. In all, one should choose an estimator accounting for its conditional and marginal biases and residual mean square error; the most suitable estimator will depend on relative desires to minimise each of these factors. If one cares solely about the conditional and marginal biases, the conditional maximum likelihood estimate may be preferred provided lower and upper stopping boundaries are included. If the conditional and marginal residual mean square error are also of concern, two mean adjusted estimators perform well.

The uniform minimum variance unbiased estimator (UMVUE) is, by definition, a solution to removing bias in estimation following a multi-stage single-arm trial with a primary dichotomous outcome. However, the UMVUE is known to have large residual mean squared error (RMSE). Therefore, we develop an optimisation approach to finding estimators with reduced RMSE for many response rates, which attain low bias. We demonstrate that careful choice of the optimisation parameters can lead to an estimator with often substantially reduced RMSE, without the introduction of appreciable bias.

Basket trials are an innovative precision medicine clinical trial design evaluating a single targeted therapy across multiple diseases that share a common characteristic. To date, most basket trials have been conducted in early-phase oncology settings, for which several Bayesian methods permitting information sharing across subtrials have been proposed. With the increasing interest of implementing randomised basket trials, information borrowing could be exploited in two ways; considering the commensurability of either the treatment effects or the outcomes specific to each of the treatment groups between the subtrials. In this article, we extend a previous analysis model based on distributional discrepancy for borrowing over the subtrial treatment effects ('treatment effect borrowing', TEB) to borrowing over the subtrial groupwise responses ('treatment response borrowing', TRB). Simulation results demonstrate that both modelling strategies provide substantial gains over an approach with no borrowing. TRB outperforms TEB especially when subtrial sample sizes are small on all operational characteristics, while the latter has considerable gains in performance over TRB when subtrial sample sizes are large, or the treatment effects and groupwise mean responses are noticeably heterogeneous across subtrials. Further, we notice that TRB, and TEB can potentially lead to different conclusions in the analysis of real data., Competing Interests: None to be declared., (© 2022 The Authors. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics) published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Royal Statistical Society.)

Background and Objectives: To investigate how subgroup analyses of published Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are performed when subgroups are created from continuous variables., Methods: We carried out a review of RCTs published in 2016-2021 that included subgroup analyses. Information was extracted on whether any of the subgroups were based on continuous variables and, if so, how they were analyzed., Results: Out of 428 reviewed papers, 258 (60.4%) reported RCTs with a subgroup analysis. Of these, 178/258 (69%) had at least one subgroup formed from a continuous variable and 14/258 (5.4%) were unclear. The vast majority (169/178, 94.9%) dichotomized the continuous variable and treated the subgroup as categorical. The most common way of dichotomizing was using a pre-specified cutpoint (129/169, 76.3%), followed by a data-driven cutpoint (26/169, 15.4%), such as the median., Conclusion: It is common for subgroup analyses to use continuous variables to define subgroups. The vast majority dichotomize the continuous variable and, consequently, may lose substantial amounts of statistical information (equivalent to reducing the sample size by at least a third). More advanced methods that can improve efficiency, through optimally choosing cutpoints or directly using the continuous information, are rarely used., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Phase II clinical trials are a critical aspect of the drug development process. With drug development costs ever increasing, novel designs that can improve the efficiency of phase II trials are extremely valuable.Phase II clinical trials for cancer treatments often measure a binary outcome. The final trial decision is generally to continue or cease development. When this decision is based solely on the result of a hypothesis test, the result may be known with certainty before the planned end of the trial. Unfortunately, there is often no opportunity for early stopping when this occurs.Some existing designs do permit early stopping in this case, accordingly reducing the required sample size and potentially speeding up drug development. However, more improvements can be achieved by stopping early when the final trial decision is very likely, rather than certain, known as stochastic curtailment. While some authors have proposed approaches of this form, these approaches have various limitations.In this work we address these limitations by proposing new design approaches for single-arm phase II binary outcome trials that use stochastic curtailment. We use exact distributions, avoid simulation, consider a wider range of possible designs and permit early stopping for promising treatments. As a result, we are able to obtain trial designs that have considerably reduced sample sizes on average.

Background: It is well accepted that randomized controlled trials provide the greatest quality of evidence about effectiveness and safety of new interventions. In neurosurgery, randomized controlled trials face challenges, with their use remaining relatively low compared with other clinical areas. Adaptive designs have emerged as a method for improving the efficiency and patient benefit of trials. They allow modifications to the trial design to be made as patient outcome data are collected. The benefit they provide is highly variable, predominantly governed by the time taken to observe the primary endpoint compared with the planned recruitment rate. They also face challenges in design, conduct, and reporting., Methods: We provide an overview of the benefits and challenges of adaptive designs, with a focus on neurosurgery applications. To investigate how often an adaptive design may be advantageous in neurosurgery, we extracted data on recruitment rates and endpoint lengths for ongoing neurosurgery trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov., Results: We found that a majority of neurosurgery trials had a relatively short endpoint length compared with the planned recruitment period and therefore may benefit from an adaptive trial. However, we did not identify any ongoing ClinicalTrials.gov registered neurosurgery trials that mentioned using an adaptive design., Conclusions: Adaptive designs may provide benefits to neurosurgery trials and should be considered for use more widely. Use of some types of adaptive design, such as multiarm multistage, may further increase the number of interventions that can be tested with limited patient and financial resources., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Simon's two-stage design is a widely used adaptive design, particularly in phase II oncology trials due to its simplicity and efficiency. However, its efficiency can be adversely affected when the primary end-point takes time to observe, as is common in practice., Methods: We propose an optimal design, taking the delay in observing treatment outcome into consideration and compare the efficiency gained from using Simon's design over a single-stage design for real-life oncology trials. Based on the results, we provide a general rule-of-thumb for determining whether a two-stage single-arm design can provide any added advantage over a single-stage design, given the recruitment rate and primary end-point length., Results: We observed an average 15-30% loss in the estimated efficiency gain in real oncology trials that used Simon's design due to the delay in observing the treatment outcome. The delay-optimal design provides some advantage over Simon's design in terms of reduced sample size when the delay is large compared to the recruitment length., Discussion: Simon's two-stage design provides large benefit over a single-stage design, in terms of reduced sample size, when the primary end-point length is no more than 10% of the total recruitment time. It provides no efficiency advantage when this ratio is above 50%., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial (SW-CRT) designs are often used when there is a desire to provide an intervention to all enrolled clusters, because of a belief that it will be effective. However, given there should be equipoise at trial commencement, there has been discussion around whether a pre-trial decision to provide the intervention to all clusters is appropriate. In pharmaceutical drug development, a solution to a similar desire to provide more patients with an effective treatment is to use a response adaptive (RA) design., Methods: We introduce a way in which RA design could be incorporated in an SW-CRT, permitting modification of the intervention allocation during the trial. The proposed framework explicitly permits a balance to be sought between power and patient benefit considerations. A simulation study evaluates the methodology., Results: In one scenario, for one particular RA design, the proportion of cluster-periods spent in the intervention condition was observed to increase from 32.2% to 67.9% as the intervention effect was increased. A cost of this was a 6.2% power drop compared to a design that maximized power by fixing the proportion of time in the intervention condition at 45.0%, regardless of the intervention effect., Conclusions: An RA approach may be most applicable to settings for which the intervention has substantial individual or societal benefit considerations, potentially in combination with notable safety concerns. In such a setting, the proposed methodology may routinely provide the desired adaptability of the roll-out speed, with only a small cost to the study's power., (© 2022 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)